All
3 are essential components of a comprehensive health strategy to help consumers
improve their diets and reduce diseases when shopping at their local grocery
store.[*]

With the natural/organic food category growing over 400% in the
last 20 years,it really shouldn’t be
too much of a surprise that companies are cashing in by resorting to exaggerated, misleading or flat out false claims to
gain a dollar in this growing market.[*][*][*][*]

In fact, companies spend billions in shady advertising to get you
to purchase their product. Millions of which are spent in finding just the
right words and written language to give them an advantage over the other guy
(via test marketing, segmentation, positioning, branding, targeting, consumer
research).[*]

Here is a list of the most common examples of false claims and other labeling shenanigans by the US food
industry.

Natural

Also
commonly labeled All Natural, 100% Natural, Naturally Raised

Obviously,
products claiming to be natural (particularly those aimed at parents) have a
competitive edge in the marketplace…it shouldn’t surprise us to see this label
on literally EVERYTHING nowadays.[*]

As
you may know, the Natural label is an extremelygeneral claim that often causes a
consumer to imply a product or
packaging is made from or is innate to our environment.[*]

Some
consumers may even interpret claims such as “All Natural” or “100% Natural” as
indicating a more nutritious or wholesome food product than it really is.[*]

In
actuality, the FDA and the USDA regulate the term “natural” differently. So
let’s clarify.[*]

FDA: Easy
enough, the agency has never issued
formal rules to clarify what the term ‘Natural’ represents. This is
because, according to the FDA : “From a food science perspective, it is
difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has
probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth”.[*][*]

In
essence, all products labeled Natural that are not meat or poultry – have no merit at all.

…and
that’s it for the FDA’s definition of the term.

USDA: Unlike the
FDA, the USDA has formal policy (since 1982) on the term Natural. This policy declares all fresh meat and poultry (note, NOT
eggs or dairy) carrying the “natural” claim must not contain any artificial flavoring, color ingredients, chemical
preservatives, or artificial or synthetic ingredients, and the meat is
“minimally processed” defined by USDA as a process that does not fundamentally
alter the raw product.[*][*]

It
may be worth noting that the USDA permits products to be labeled “100% Natural”
or “All Natural” even if they contain added chicken broth, beef broth and/or
saline water which can raise the sodium content of the product to unnatural levels.[*]

Although
some producers may use the term “natural” on meat to claim that animals were
not exposed to any antibiotics or hormones, this implication falls outside the scope of the USDA definition.[*]

Antibiotic
use and/or hormone claims are not approved/regulated by the Natural label under the USDA.[*]

Also
worth noting, the natural label does not include any standards regarding farm
practice (ex. humane treatment/animal rights).[*]

Regarding
annual verification on Natural claims, the USDA has defined the use of the term
and can hold manufacturers accountable to the proper use of the claim but does NOT currently have a verification
system in place to verify products after the initial approval prior to
marketing. [*][*]

It
may be worth noting that GMO
ingredients are commonly used in food, beverages and/or feed used in
beef/poultry/pig production that is then later labeled Natural.

In
fact, a Hartman Group poll in 2010 illustrated that over 60 percent of
consumers mistakenly believe that the
"natural" label implies or suggests the absence of genetically
engineered (GMO) ingredients.[*]

Of
course, some may propose that GMO ingredients are not different then the
naturally occurring thing (be it animal or plant). But consider, you are
genetically manipulating a plant or animal that becomes an organism that has
never existed prior in nature…seems pretty UNnatural
to me…

In
2010, the FDA purported that the consumer can read the label for themselves and
determine if the item is natural – unfortunately, GMO ingredients are not
required to be labeled (which may make it a tad difficult for consumers to read
it).[*][*]

Bottom line – Natural
only has real value when referring to meat and poultry when products are
initially approved for marketing by the USDA (after initial approval, there is
no verification system in place to validate/re-confirm claims).

Organic

You may be asking yourself why is the USDA Organic food label on
this list….true, the Organic label comes with MUCH more merit then the
‘Natural’ label, I give you that…

However, the USDA Organic label is quickly losing the integrity it once possessed…for several reasons.

You may not realize, but to a very large extent, large NON-organic corporations have now come
to dominate the organic food market and hold several seats on the National
Organic Standards Board (NOSB).

Fun note about the NOSB, this board is in charge of making
recommendations regarding which
substances are allowed and which are prohibited in organic food. The NOSB
serves as an advisory board to USDA.[*]

It may not be too surprising, as large corporate memberships on
the board increase, so has the number of nonorganic materials approved for
organic foods. This list is called the National
List. In 2002, 77 ingredients (such as baking soda) constructed the
National List… today, more than 250
nonorganic substances are listed. [*]

I highly recommend you check out the
National List for yourself…a very interesting read.

You might note carrageenan, a seaweed-derived thickener, is on the
List. This might be interesting since it has a somewhat controversial
background. Yet, the National Organic Standards Board voted 10 to 5 to keep
carrageenan on the growing list of nonorganic ingredients that can be used in
organic labeled foods.[*]

Ammonium
Nonanoate, an herbicide, was voted to be added to the list in DEC 2011.
Those who voted on the Board for the addition were General Mills, Campbell’s
Soup, Organic Valley, Whole Foods Market and Earthbound Farms. Luckily, the
vote did not win the two-thirds majority that it needed – if it did, it would
have been the first time a herbicide
was placed on the list.[*]

There is also the issue of repeat
failures of inspection and regulation of those using the Organic label.

In March 2010, an audit by the USDA Office found inspection agencies were failing to
ensure that organic operations were producing organic products under a
uniform regulatory requirement. Those involved in the USDA audit recognized
that it really doesn’t take much to be certified organic.[*]

1 A conflict of interest is created when certifying agency is paid
directly by the farmers requesting the Organic label.

2 The accreditation of the certifying agencies is seldom
re-evaluated.

3 Organic farmers are unwilling to maintain the paperwork to
provide transparency of their operations.

4 The certifying agencies are inconsistent with the frequency of
inspections, inspection standards and the punishment of violations.

5 The National Organic Program does not maintain a systematic
program for catching fraudulent operations with very few agencies testing for
pesticides.

Now, I hope you are starting to get the gist of why the integrity
of the organic label is slowly becoming less than the original standards it
once stood for.

Bottom
line –
The Organic label could be considered to be a victim of its own success. As the
demand increases for organic foods, so does the interest from large
corporations that will be able to influence the regulation and laws the label
is composed of. If you can’t grow your own or buy from local farmers, then the
best we got is the Organic label…just be aware that it ain’t what it used to
be.

Given that, eggs may be labeled as containing omega-3 if chickens
are fed flax seed, but they should NOT
be considered to have a heart health benefit because of their cholesterol and
saturated fat content.[*]

Also, some products will add flax powder in their food simple to
attach the omega-3 label on their product.[*]

Bottom
line - If you want to increase you intake of Omega 3 fatty acids,
stick to wild caught cold water fatty fish and seaweed.

Pasture-raised

Due to the number of variables involved in pasture-raised
agricultural systems, the USDA has not developed a federal definition for
pasture-raised products.[*]

Bottom
line - In the US, this label is meaningless.

No Added Hormones

Also seen as ‘Raised without Hormones”, No Hormones Administered,

Federal regulations have never
permitted hormones or steroids in poultry or pork. So, the problem with
this label is that by using the term 'no added hormones' it suggests that any
other products that do not use this term are adding hormones - this is not the
case.[*][*]

However, the USDA does
allow the use of a number of hormones on beef. Beef and that is labeled as
“no hormones administered” is considered to be free from any added hormones
over the lifetime of the animal and therefore does imply that the manufacturer
has gone beyond USDA regulations for conventional meat production. [*]

Yet, it is important to note that the use of the term “hormone free” is considered “unapprovable” by USDA on any
meat products.[*]

Bottom
line - In the US, the merit of this label is trivial because it only
applies to beef and in that case is considered ‘unapprovable’ .

Humanely Raised

Multiple labeling programs make claims that animals were treated
humanely during the production cycle, but the verification of these claims
varies widely. This label is not
regulated under a single USDA definition.[*]

The label Certified Humane®
is completely different then the generic, all-encompassing Humanely Raised
label.

The Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) 28-member Scientific Committee
has reviewed all of the current research which resulted in standards for the
Certified Humane® label. This certification conducts annual inspections by independent
non-profit companies and required producers to meet all animal care
standards in order to achieve certification (maybe the Organic label can take
note on this one).[*]

It’s interesting to note that HFAC's Certified Humane® "Free
Range" not only has a space requirement but also a prerequisite that hens
must be outdoors for at least 6 hours per day (weather permitting).[*]

Bottom
line – If you’re worried about animal rights, this label does nothing
to make you sleep better at night. If you are interested in where to buy products
that have the actual Certified Humane® label check this
link out to search in your area.

Free Range

Also labeled Free Roaming

The USDA has defined "free range" or "free
roaming" for poultry products
only (this does NOT include
eggs or beef).[*]

The USDA's (and industry standard) definition for "Free
Range" is that birds must have "outdoor access" for 5 minutes.
In some cases, this can mean access only through a "pop hole," with
no full-body access to the outdoors and no minimum space requirement.[*][*]

These regulations do not specify the quality of outdoor access (ex. small patch of dirt or gravel) of
the outside range. [*][*]

One thought to add to the ‘free range’ term is beak trimming which
still normally occurs even though battery cages have been phased out. Beak
trimming is most common in egg-laying strains of chickens. In some countries
such as the United States, turkeys are routinely beak trimmed as well. (Beak
trimming has been banned in Switzerland since 1992). The practice of beak
trimming most often occurs at 1-day of age at the same time as the chick is
being sexed and vaccinated.[*]

Bottom
line – Remember, the label Free Range used on beef and eggs is unregulated and there is no standard
definition of this term. In fact, the use of this label regarding poultry
is a flat-out joke when you read what the term actually defines. Although you may find eggs or chicken meat claiming to be free range,
I wouldn’t assume the bird was out pecking around in the sun outside old Farmer
Brown’s barn. [*]

Raised without Antibiotics

The USDA has banned the use
of the "antibiotic free" label on meat and poultry.

Use of the term "antibiotic free" is considered "unapprovable" by USDA on any
meat products. Yet the USDA still allows producers to label meat and
poultry products with the claims "no antibiotics administered" or
"raised without antibiotics."[*]

Virtually all intensively farmed animals receive low levels of
antibiotics in their feed or water throughout their lives to get them to market
weight. When animals are confined indoors by the thousands, antibiotics are used
to suppress disease. Often times, animals are taken off the drugs before
slaughter – as is often required by law
for animals destined for human consumption.[*]

There is no organization that verifies this claim other than the
company manufacturing or marketing the product. [*][*]

In 2008, Tyson Foods settled a class action consumer lawsuit for
its false "Raised Without Antibiotics" claim. The company withdrew
its modified label and agreed to $5 million in compensation (which isn’t much
considering annual revenues of nearly $27 billion). [*]

Bottom
line – This label is unapprovable and unregulated…which makes it
pretty much worthless.

No Additives

I see this label a lot in combination with other labels.

Unfortunately, there is no official definition for the term ‘No
Additives’ and it is not verified when used.[*]

Bottom
line – worthless.

Made
With

This
label may claim that a food is “made with” whole grains, fruits, vegetables….it
may even emphasize the presence of healthful ingredients through the use of
pictures or banners.

True,
the FDA requires companies to comply with specific regulations for claims about
nutrients (such as fats, cholesterol, sodium, fiber)…however, the law does not
cover claims about pictures of ingredients which may not even included in the product
(such as whole wheat, fruits or veggies).[*]

For example: Tropical fruit flavored Gerber
Graduates Fruit Juice Treats show pictures of fresh oranges and pineapple. But
the main ingredients are corn syrup, sugar and white grape juice concentrate.

Bottom line – Read the ingredient list. If
the ingredient even made it on list, look to see if it’s one of the first 3
ingredients in the product.

Good Source Of

This label ensures that the product contains between 10-19% of your daily requirement for a particular nutrient.[*]

Where this term can become quite misleading is in terms of fiber. This
is because many products add “isolated” fiber.On top of that, there is very
little evidence that “isolated” fiber provides any of the disease-protective
benefits that the real soluble and insoluble fibers do.[*][*][*]

If you see the words “inulin,” “polydextrose,” and “maltodextrin”
listed in the ingredients, you are eating “isolated” fiber.[*]

Bottom
line – Looking for a good source of anything: stay with whole foods.

Lightly-sweetened

Also
seen as Low Sugar

The
FDA has regulations concerning the use of “sugar free” and “no added sugars”
but nothing governing the claims “low
sugar” or “lightly sweetened”.[*]

First thing, the most kind and
intelligent people in my life purchase/consume animal products that have foreboding origins. And
bottom line, a person’s choice of food, in my opinion, does not determine whether that person is a loving and compassion soul...
it does, however, bring up a psychological and ethical paradox.[*][*][*]

American’s love their pets.

Last year alone, we spent over 14
billion dollars on pet services (not including vet care). There has been no
time in history that has seen such a wide and growing variety of products and
services for pets and pet parents.[*]

American’s also love their meat
(and cheese)….no other county in the world consumes more meat then America.[*]

With these statistics, I have to
admit I am a bit confused by the logic of consuming/purchasing animal products
(ex. meat, dairy, clothing) but still professing our beliefs against animal
cruelty.

Is it that people are still truly
in the dark when it comes to the origin and process of how their food got to
their plate?

True, some Americans do choose to
stop eating meat and/or dairy (or choose more humane origins such as local
farmers) when they learn the extent that animals suffer for its production. However,
an overwhelming majority do not. Recent
research has illustrated that people keep eating meat by simply dampening their moral consideration of
animals when sitting at the dinner table.[*]

Research explains that when there
is a conflict between people's preferred way of thinking and their preferred
way of acting, it is their thoughts and
moral standards that people abandon first -- rather than changing their
behavior.[*]

People may even employ the
following when faced with their role as a consumer in the reality of the horrific
conditions of industrialized meat/dairy:

Isolation - "The animals are
nowhere near me and have nothing to do with me." “There is nothing I can
do about it.”

Repression - Any guilt arising
from having an active role in animal cruelty is avoided..

Humor - Making a joke out of the
issue to avoid their own feelings about it.

This may be surprising to some, but
animals raised for food in the US, in large part, are excluded from legal protection against cruelty.[*]

Specifically, 28 states have
enacted laws that create a legal realm whereby certain acts, no matter how cruel, are deem
‘accepted’,‘common’, ‘customary’, and ‘normal’ farming practices. Of those
states that do have anticruelty statues, they exclude poultry which represents
approximate 95% of the 7 billion farm animals slaughtered annually.[*]

(I’m not going to drone on and on
regarding what happens to these animals. I’ve seen it and I don’t care to rehash
it. If you are truly curious then I suggest watching Earthlings or, the rated PG version, Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home)

So how do we go from abandoning
our underlying principles of animal cruelty to changing our behavior? Could the
answer be in an encompassing grasp on
how much power the consumer has over this dilemma?

With each meal, with each dollar
– we truly cast our vote each and every day on whether we support animal cruelty or if we have enough balls and
wherewithal to stand up against it.

“We patronize animals for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having
taken form so far beneath ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For
the animal shall not be measured by man.

In a world older and more complex than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we
have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are
not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with
ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and
travail of the earth."

-Harry Beston 1888~1968

For those of you who are too afraid to
witness how these animals come into this world, live, reproduce and die...just
remember that they have to live through this violence each and every day, every
minute and every second – and each of us
has an active role in its progression (or cessation).

Even more disturbing, in my opinion, is this cruelty is caused not because
Americans are starving, naked, or without other means of enriching their lives,
but rather - we simple enjoy a cheap double bacon cheeseburger or we like the
feel of leather. Suffering caused for nothing more than fulfillment of
sensual desire.

I
understand, no one wants to see, experience or confront this violence…watching an educational documentary on how
animals are treated today in agriculture (such as "Earthlings") is
hard to watch, but would be even harder
to live.

To
be honest, I never thought that I'd be the victim of such an impact. To the
point that it would have such an immense influence on my health and
spirituality.

For
me, I SEVERELY underestimated how devastating the knowledge a movie like this imparts.
I felt so mentally and emotionally exhausted after but also I felt an
incredible sense of empowerment.

It
lends an energy and purpose that tends to light a fire and push a person to be
an integral part of ending the suffering.

On behalf of the billions and billions of
animals who are suffering today, right this second...may your voice and actions
be lent to them.

"Man's fate is like that of the animals;
the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the
same breath; man has no advantage over the animal."

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

… how
is it that humanity has become so inhumane?

There
is no NEED for this type of cruelty in today's society.

Everyone
wants a better world, but few actually place the effort into modifying their
behavior to BE the change to make that type of world. Be that change.

"You have just dined, and however
scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles,
there is complicity."

In
the early 19th century, a few scientists extrapolated a new and
bizarre theory: that disease was caused by tiny organisms and each illness had
a corresponding germ.

After
a few years of examining sterile
cultures slides and a bit of playing around with vaccines, these scientists
were able to convince the world that their germ
theory of disease was, indeed, true.

This
outlook was convenient (and perhaps, perfectly poised to take root at this time
in history during America’s industrialization) because it was methodical and specialized in its
approach to understanding both the cause and treatment of disease. It allowed
us to breakdown, the cause of an ailment to one small, fundamental unit which
provided us a simpler way to understand
a disease (ex. one germ for each disease). [*]

A
treatment was then established based on this approach allowing generalized (‘one size fits all’) and
massive quantities to be produced at an
industrious scale. This approach was able to keep cost and time at a
minimum while treating an increasing population. [*]

However,
this mechanical approach to health is now diminishing…

Some
biologists have even begun to speculate a new
theory (I imagine just as absurd as germ theory was originally thought
of back in the early 19th century): that humans are not individual entities, but rather
complete ecosystems dependent on
billions (100 trillion +) of bacteria and viruses (quadrillion +) to establish,
maintain and actively influence health.[*][*]

Much
of this information would have Pasteur rolling over in his grave…. who would
think that viruses would be shown to
help keep people disease free?[*][*]

Enter
the field of Microbiomics.

If
you have not heard of the human microbiome or microbiomics then, with great
reverence, let me provide some mind
blowing information for you to digest (no pun intended).

Microbiomics
(….and why it’s absolutely mind blowing)

The
‘specific causes’ of diseases that revolutionized medicine a century ago is
going through a conceptual evolution (time to get on board) – the way
scientists think about disease and normal physiology is transforming. [*]

When
I was in 7th grade, I remember the Human Genome Project being the next biggest and greatest thing
science had going on…. now that it has been completed, however, a new phase has
emerged: the Human Microbiome Project
(HMP)….and it is changing everything. [*]

The
HMP is an initiative to sequence the genomes of all the microbiological flora
for a variety of body sites which play a “vital
and interactive role” with our human DNA, immunity
and disease.
As bacteria, microbes and viruses in our bodies are modified under
environmental pressure (ex. antibiotics and cesarean section birth), so is the
regulation and replication of our genes (yes, our DNA). The two are intimately
connected. [*]

Far
from being the ‘master molecule’ in our physiology, our DNA is demoted to simply another set of cellular genomes jostling
for influence within us, reacting to and
being regulated by, a set of microbial genomes that outnumber our own 10
to 1. [*]

Try
to think of the bacteria, microbes and viruses that reside in our bodies as it’s own sensory motor organ which
reacts much like our own nervous or immune system.[*]

Our
microbiome encodesphysiological traits that we were
able to bypass in evolution; for example, the ability to “harvest certain nutrients
and energy from food that would otherwise be lost because we lack the necessary
digestive enzymes”. [*]

The
Death of Germ Theory

The
major conceptual doctrine of Pasteur’s germ theory is the role of causal pathogenic agents in disease.
For example, diseases are separable from
the patient and bacteria or virus in a human host equals disease. [*]

Even
before the study of Microbiomics, it was clear that many individuals harbor
dangerous bacteria (even at in large quantities) and suffer no ill effects.[*]

Certain
diseases, such as herpes virus infection, which seem to fit neatly in the germ
theory framework began to reveal a beneficial
relationship that conferred immune advantages:

After
clearance of acute infection, latent herpesvirus confers resistance to bacterial infection. To be specific,
protection correlated with 100-fold
reduction in bacterial burden in the spleen and liver.

“We
now demonstrate that herpesvirus infection triggers systemic, PROFOUND IMMUNE MODULATION, with the
potential to alter significantly the kinetics and nature of host response to
foreign antigens.

Thus,
whereas the immune evasion capabilities and lifelong persistence of
herpesviruses are commonly viewed as solely pathogenic, our data suggest that
latency is a SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP
with immune benefits for the host.”

So
long we’ve swallowed the metaphor of an
endless “war” on infectious diseases which involved a search for the microbial ‘cause’ of each and every disease(of course, followed by the anti-microbial cure). This ideal has
served its purpose and now we can no longer allow it to be our sole guide in
medicine. [*]

“A
new paradigm is needed that incorporates a more
realistic and detailed picture of the dynamic interaction among and between
host organisms and their diverse populations of microbes, only a fraction of which act as pathogens.” (Forum on Microbial
Threats, 2006) [*]

A
New Understanding of Disease

Quick
Personal Backstory:My recent “antibiotic debacle”

About
a month ago, my two year old was sent home from daycare for pink eye. I was
expected to get a prescription for antibiotics for her to return. I was
hesitant to say the least, my daughter has never received antibiotics and I
wasn’t certain that all cases of conjunctivitis were caused by a bacteria. When
we visited the nurse, she instructed me that only bacteria cause pink eye and my concern on delaying antibiotics
was not sound. She went ahead and prescribed antibiotic eye drops.

Within
10 minutes of doing my own research once I returned home, I found this to be completely untrue. In fact, the
majority of conjunctivitis cases are caused by a virus (NOT BACTERIA). Not to
mention, the data very clearly illustrates that antibiotics for conjunctivitis
is a complete over kill and often
times does more harm than good.[*][*]

I
made a deal with my husband, let’s wait one day before we administer the
medication. We waited and her condition improved on its own. I suspect if we
used the antibiotics, we would attribute her recovery to the drugs – luckily,
we waited.

Medication
we use via the ocular route (via eye drops) is just as important to research as
ingested or injected drugs. Eye drop medication enters the bloodstream via mucous membranes lining the surface of
the eye, the tear drainage system, and the nose. Once in the bloodstream, the
medication can cause side effects in other parts of the body, including slow
heart rate, dizziness and headaches.[*]

The
outdated, traditional interpretation of disease correlates health as a matter
of being “clean” and in order to obtain and maintain health we are advised to completely obliterate anything that’s
not a human cell. [*]

Now,
of course, microbiomics does not suggest health is all rainbows, ponies and
singing kumbayah - our bacteria
ecosystem can (and does) go awry. Certain species within us can overpopulate, resources decline,
diversity is reduced (via antibiotics) and the interdependent processes can
collapse.[*]

A
new metaphor replaces the old – an
understanding of ‘balance’ and ‘harmony’ supersedes the traditional thought ofspecific causation (one germ for
each disease). Rather, human health is a matter of “having ones physiological
process and predispositions aligned topromote homeostasis”. [*]

“It
may turn out that diseases caused by microbial pathogens are best seen not so
much as an invasion by a hostile organism, but rather as a kind of holistic dysfunction of the microbiome.” [*]

Simply
revolutionary.

The
greatest benefit to the health and wellness of a human body is not sterility,
but rather “on maintenance of the
symbiotic relationship between the host and the intestinal microbiotia”.[*]

This
model, based on the latest science has to offer, suggests there are no diseases that exist separate from
ourselves (ex. viruses floating around getting people sick) – only sick
people whose processes within the body are not in balance. Recovering our
health, therefor, is a matter of controlling the forces that influence the
homeostasis within us.Our health
becomes a matter of our own
responsibility. [*]

Antibiotics
–Use with Extreme Caution (better
yet, don’t use at all)

Our
internal bacteria (particularly those located in the intestines) are essential
to our health and “play an active role
in nutrition, development, metabolism, pathogen resistance, and regulation of
immune responses”. Antibiotic use, even for a short duration, has been
“shown to disrupt these coevolved interactions
leading to acute or chronic disease”.[*]

For
every one human cell, there resides 10 bacteria cells within the human body
(with viral particles expected to be a hundred times greater). Science,
research and data continue to reaffirm that they play an active role in not only maintaining our normal physiology
but also protecting us from: [*][*][*]

-respiratory
infections

-acute
intestinal infections

-allergies

-autism

-obesity

-type
II diabetes

-cardiovascular
diseases

-several
forms of cancer

In
addition to being numerous, our microbes are also “enormously varied” – with over 1,000 bacterial species residing
within us. [*]

In
fact, all plants and animals can be considered superorganisms; composed of a variety of species –
bacterial and viral. [*]

This
variation in species is critical to
health and is why antibiotics have been
shown (repeatedly) to be permanently harmful (especially to
children).

2007
The ISME Journal, Multidisciplinary Journal of Microbial Ecology

Long-term and
persistent impact on human intestinal microbiota is a direct response
from antibiotic exposure which never return to its original composition (during the 2 years of the
study period). [*]

Antibiotics
use in Children and Immune-mediated Disease

Antibiotics
hold the possibility to be useful in
some cases, but must be used with caution to
protect long term health.

If
you take anything away from reading this collection of data, please:

Several
studies of antibiotic treatment has shown that the gut microbiota is profoundly and persistently
altered by broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Data has shown that bacteria
communities do not return to
their initial state even after antibiotic treatment is withdrawn. [*]

During
infancy and childhood, appropriate microbial stimulation and colonization is
required for the development of a healthy, functional immune system. [*]

It
is “well knownthat early life events occurring during critical windows of immune
development can have long-term impact on immune-mediated disease.
Antibiotic use in children has been shown, with significance, to increase such
diseases as: diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, asthma (requiring the use of
inhaled corticosteroids), eczema. [*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*][*]

Antibiotic
use must be critically evaluated, not just for ourselves but especially for
children.Each time we administer
antibiotic medication it results in a
ten-fold reduction in the amount of beneficial intestinal bacterial present.
[*]

With
the use of antibiotic drugs, “significant
alternations are seen in the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines” and Th1 immune maturation which has profound effects on our immune
system. [*][*]

Take
Care of Your Health by Giving Your Microbiome Some Love

My preference is to eat and drink foods that promote a healthy
flora (versus relying on supplements) while being mindful of the lifestyle
choices that can hurt me (moderation is key, of course)….

It
may go completely against what we all have been taught in high school biology
class, to think that bacteria and viruses make our immune system function
better, but the science is becoming evident: A healthy, mature immune system
depends on the constant interventionof beneficial bacteria.[*]

Humans
(all mammals, in fact) have co-evolved over millions of years to establish a dynamic,
complex check-&-balance system with our microbiota. It shouldn’t be all
that surprising that our immune system (particularly our mucosal immune system)
has developed an intricate connection that mediates the balance between health
and disease.[*][*]

Both
innate and adaptive immune function has evolved to require microbial interactions during their development. [*]

The microbiota provides critical signals that promote maturation
of immune cells and tissues, leading to protection from infections by
pathogens. [*]

We must become more aware of our symbiotic relationship with the
bacteria within the body (especially our children’s). This starts with not
stereotyping all bacteria as bad. In fact, although a few may be problematic,
these account for far less than 1% that
exist in our body.[*]

Take care of your ecosystem – it sure takes care of you!

You can't learn everything
from the laboratory, that's what he used to say. The whole is more than the sum
of its parts, he told us. The whole behaves differently from the parts, and has
different properties. That's what he taught us, and he was right. It's out of
fashion to say these days, when we spend our time scrutinizing the interactions
of eukaryotic microbes, but it's true, nevertheless. It's still true.